Yeah. Good cadence. Pauses, give evidence, gives state's spin and says the state is asking you to leap from the evidence to guilt. On "fscking punks", the fact that he was willing to say it is evidence of non-guilt. There is no aniumus, spite, hatred or ill will in the tone of Zimmerman's voice.

Puts phone call timeline on easel, covering only the lower part of the "reasonable doubt as to self defense" chart.

Anyway, his presentation exudes confidence in the case and arguments. If Guy comes in "agitated," showing flop sweat, you will know the state's case is cooked. O'Mara is giving the jury certain points that Guy either addresses, or concedes to the defense.

On the NEN call, the state doesn't want you to remember Sean's "let me know if he does anything else" (which is on the timeline, which goes back with deliberations. Tells the jury to listen to how Zimmerman says "fscking punks" and "they always get away." Says he was going to play (in closing) a tape of Guy and de la Rionda using those words as a contrast, decided not to, tells the jury to listen to the NEN call for Zimmerman's tone.

He says, keep in mind, when Zimmerman and Sean were talking, they had no idea this would be dissected in court. They were just talking. Where is he going? Which way is he going now? He says maybe at this point Zimmerman cracks like the guy in the movie "Network" (I'M mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore!!!). No, he says, listen to Zimmerman later in the call. he says "OK" and stops following.

O'Mara put the weather report in so you can hear that the wind was up that night. Zimmerman isn't running after Martin, was he tracking him? You, the jury get to decide that. But he draws back to the ill will, spite, hatred. Referring to the NEN call, "what's your name" "George" and so on.

Is there any evidence in this case that supports the contention that he ran anywhere, or that he ran after Martin after he said "OK"? Let Guy tell you that there is even evidence that Zimmerman walked after Martin.

Which witness told you that Lauer's lights were on, so Zimmerman saw the house number as he walked by? The state never asked "Please tell the jury, your lights were on that night." Is that a sneaky play by the defense, no. The state has a burden to prove, to produce every point, every dot, and connect them.

Next step on proving justified self defense, innocence. Working backwards from Lauer's call - what was Zimmerman doing? He didn't know he had to protect his story. He's walked to RTCircle, walking back with a little baby flashlight, which was on. It was really dark, notice the photos with flash. Evidence seems to support that George is heading back to his car, and there is not one shred of evidence to support otherwise. What is the evidence it started around the T" The flashlight, Lauer heard it, Manolo heard it, Surdyka said it started sort of outside her window. Which is where Zimmerman said it started.

O'Mara is going to play the animation for the jury. It runs a minute - minute and half, has 911 Lauer call.

Did I just hear O'Mara say that he was going to prove his client's innocence beyond a reasonable doubt? Why? Suppose he fails to convince the jury of that, they might jump to thinking he is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Doesn't sound like a smart strategy on O'M's part.

Did I just hear O'Mara say that he was going to prove his client's innocence beyond a reasonable doubt? Why? Suppose he fails to convince the jury of that, they might jump to thinking he is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Doesn't sound like a smart strategy on O'M's part.